State Highway Department v. Price
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Presiding Judge.
1. For whatever reasons, the State chose to specifically condemn and offered to pay for the condemnee’s right of access to the highway. The Supreme Court has held that "to go upon and across the public road is one of the fundamental rights which belong to abutting landowners,” a right which enactment of a statute providing for limited access highways does not divest and for which just and adequate compensation must be paid. State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 729 (152 SE2d 557). Although the State had also specifically condemned access rights in that case, the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State Highway Department v. LumpkinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
- Klumok v. State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Potts v. State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Lee v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1995
- State Highway Department v. HowardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
- Smith v. Mayor of SavannahCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
- Dendy v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.